Official Helium Community - hip-60-entity-weighted-vote

# HIP 60 : One Miner, One Vote - Author(s): cvolkernick - Start Date: 2022-04-28 - Category: Governance - Original HIP PR: https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/395 - Tracking Issue: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/399 - Status: In Discussion # Summary Currently HIP votes are conducted via wallet signatures at heliumvote.com; this proposal suggests further improvement by allowing/constraining a given wallet's voting power to equal the total number of hotspots (unique b58 addresses) in said wallet. # Rendered view https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0060-one-miner-one-vote.md

HIP 60: One Miner, One Vote · Issue #399 · helium/HIP

HIP 60 : One Miner, One Vote Author(s): @cvolkernick Start Date: 2022-04-28 Category: Governance Original HIP PR: #395 Tracking Issue: this Status: In Discussion Summary Currently HIP votes are con...

HIP/0060-one-miner-one-vote.md at main · helium/HIP

Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.

4

2

edaatweets pinned a message to this channel. 05/04/2022 2:51 AM

Generally in favour of this because right now the voting system allows anyone to hoover up HNT and swing the vote. How about validators? My suggestion in an earlier discussion was votes per validator = no. of online hotspots / no. of online validators or a variation thereof (edited)

1

I respect the effort put in to develop this but the HIP uses a good deal of emotionally charged language to frame the current voting process as bad without explaining the specific technical reason why the change should be made. (edited)

1

HG

I respect the effort put in to develop this but the HIP uses a good deal of emotionally charged language to frame the current voting process as bad without explaining the specific technical reason why the change should be made. (edited)

Doesn't really help that the submitter got himself kicked/muted/whatever from the Discord by misbehaving in the process either.

groot

Doesn't really help that the submitter got himself kicked/muted/whatever from the Discord by misbehaving in the process either.

I won’t resort to piling on but I’m surprised this got through

1

HG

I won’t resort to piling on but I’m surprised this got through

Every submitted HIP that conforms with the HIP guidelines should be given equal treatment though

The title says it all honestly. Extremely populist and rhetorical

groot

Every submitted HIP that conforms with the HIP guidelines should be given equal treatment though

I actually agree with that. Great point.

It should be noted and disclosed that the author of this hip runs a hosting service with a large fleet of hotspots.

Thank you

1

This seems to exclude people who serve as hosts for others (emrit, fairspot, etc…) unless I missed something. These people, especially those who started early, might control a significant amount of HNT and thus have a significant vested interest in the state of the network.

1

HNT is the true measure of vested interest in the network.

1

Where’s the code for this HIP? Anyway, RIP in peace, DOA on arrival

1

Also not all deployments are created equal. Why should a hotspot sitting in someone’s living room with a stock antenna be equally valued in terms of voting share as one that’s mounted on a telephone mast? Differences in deployments are reflected in HNT rewards.

3

1

Keenan

It should be noted and disclosed that the author of this hip runs a hosting service with a large fleet of hotspots.

Also worth noting who else owns large fleets of hotspots. Case in point, once a few Pisces got deny listed on 25-Apr and more started getting flagged to deny list review on 26-Apr, two days later it appears roughly 7,000 (I think) went offline mysteriously, and have stayed offline since. CTH Red Team have then since flagged I believe well over this number for deny list review. I.e. seems like there is a large fleet of gaming Pisces under single control. And they are almost certainly not the only large gaming fleet. One might say that even fleets of 10,000 are nothing against a community of 740,000 HS, but it's about who shows up to vote. If 8,000 regular community show up to vote, Mr Big Gamer can swing the whole thing. (edited)

1

Does anyone know what the terms of this guy’s hosting agreements are? Does he pay out in HNT or fiat? What percentage? I don’t want to overly speculate on his intentions but it almost seems like he’s trying to clawback voting power from his hosts? (Let me know if this comment isn’t allowed)

1

I think all those types of motivations are on the table but we probably shouldn’t piling on in here.

1

Fair enough, I guess we’ll hear him out on the call

It’s fairly obvious that this hip is less than rigorous and it’s likely it will be treated accordingly

It also has 5 clear spelling errors in 400 words, suggesting a lack of care.

2

1

I don't think a switch to one-miner one-vote is the correct answer here. I believe there's 3 major parties building the network. Miner, Validators, and Routers. If any one of those stop we wouldn't have Helium. I can also stand behind HNT if you were required to stake that HNT to vote with. However, at a bare minimum HNT is not a security so those who simply own HNT shouldn't have a vote in the network. It is however, the easiest proxy that we have. Ideally, at a minimum each of the above groups should have a voice. But it should be constructed in a way that doesn't make one voice louder than the rest. Hotspots - you sum the accounts miners transmit scales and times the agreed upon valuation of that hardware in USD. If you had 1 miner with 1.0 transmit scale = 500 for example. Validators - the agreed upon valuation of a validator in USD. If you had 1 validator = 150,000 Router - the amount of DC on hand in USD. (I don't run a router so hard to gauge its value but no data is moved without them so their very important) Then for every vote there's separate sub-group votes. Hotspots vs Hotspots, Validators vs Validators, etc. The result of these votes determine the groups vote for the HIP. Supermajority of affected entities is needed to pass. The HIP will describe the entities directly affected by the HIP. Those entities are required to vote (they are the only ones needed to approve the vote) the rest can vote but can only vote against the HIP as a checks and balance. This whole system would need to be ensured to have checks in balances for obvious reasons.

3

Deleted User

Generally in favour of this because right now the voting system allows anyone to hoover up HNT and swing the vote. How about validators? My suggestion in an earlier discussion was votes per validator = no. of online hotspots / no. of online validators or a variation thereof (edited)

I had thought perhaps weight it based on DC cost to onboard. So for hotspot that would be 1,055,000 DC. Validator you'd need to convert 10,000 HNT to DC equivalent, then divide that by 1,055,000.

Anthonyra

I don't think a switch to one-miner one-vote is the correct answer here. I believe there's 3 major parties building the network. Miner, Validators, and Routers. If any one of those stop we wouldn't have Helium. I can also stand behind HNT if you were required to stake that HNT to vote with. However, at a bare minimum HNT is not a security so those who simply own HNT shouldn't have a vote in the network. It is however, the easiest proxy that we have. Ideally, at a minimum each of the above groups should have a voice. But it should be constructed in a way that doesn't make one voice louder than the rest. Hotspots - you sum the accounts miners transmit scales and times the agreed upon valuation of that hardware in USD. If you had 1 miner with 1.0 transmit scale = 500 for example. Validators - the agreed upon valuation of a validator in USD. If you had 1 validator = 150,000 Router - the amount of DC on hand in USD. (I don't run a router so hard to gauge its value but no data is moved without them so their very important) Then for every vote there's separate sub-group votes. Hotspots vs Hotspots, Validators vs Validators, etc. The result of these votes determine the groups vote for the HIP. Supermajority of affected entities is needed to pass. The HIP will describe the entities directly affected by the HIP. Those entities are required to vote (they are the only ones needed to approve the vote) the rest can vote but can only vote against the HIP as a checks and balance. This whole system would need to be ensured to have checks in balances for obvious reasons.

I do like this, but is there an exploit here where the author(s) of the HIP get to pick the "entities directly affected by the HIP"? As a silly example, the authors of HIP-55 could decide just validators are the sub-group needed.

krby

I do like this, but is there an exploit here where the author(s) of the HIP get to pick the "entities directly affected by the HIP"? As a silly example, the authors of HIP-55 could decide just validators are the sub-group needed.

Based on HIP-7, the HIP editor (ie Jamie) is the one who sets the affected entities ... techinically. I know it's rough, but decentralized voting isn't easy. But maybe there needs to be a vote accepting a HIP to an official vote where everyone agrees to said voting limitations

(edited)

Ahh, thanks. Ok, we end up having to trust Helium Foundation a bunch anyway, so this isn't so bad.

great idea this HIP

it gives voting power to those actually deploying the network in the real world, also stops potential vote abuse via temporary whaling hnt to sway a vote.

Question. Are they miners, or hotspots? :3

1

HG

I respect the effort put in to develop this but the HIP uses a good deal of emotionally charged language to frame the current voting process as bad without explaining the specific technical reason why the change should be made. (edited)

Care to point out what parts of the language in the HIP are "emotionally charged"? Glad to clarify or make any appropriate edits to remove any sense of that where applicable.

Always surprises me when this topic comes up that people don’t see how valuable speculators are to the network. None of you would be here without them. Feels bizarre to me that a $500 hotspot owner is “more valuable” than someone injecting hundreds of thousands or millions of $ of value into the ecosystem

7

6

1

capcom

Always surprises me when this topic comes up that people don’t see how valuable speculators are to the network. None of you would be here without them. Feels bizarre to me that a $500 hotspot owner is “more valuable” than someone injecting hundreds of thousands or millions of $ of value into the ecosystem

Speculators should invest in Nova Labs via equity and/or HSTs...not the network itself.

Completely misunderstands the value of token economics

3

"speculating" on the network can be done by means of operating hotspots, validators, or routers.

07:35

I'd question "misunderstands" and grant "disagrees with weight given to value".

Anyway, good luck with this one

capcom

Anyway, good luck with this one

We'll have to see what the community thinks.

1

Keenan

It should be noted and disclosed that the author of this hip runs a hosting service with a large fleet of hotspots.

Nothing being hidden.

07:37

The antagonism around this amazes me just as much as anything tbh. But I probably shouldn't be surprised when there is an inherent financial interest vested in the subject. (edited)

07:38

The fact that it comes up so often probably says there's something there to be addressed as opposed to being dismissed.

HG

The title says it all honestly. Extremely populist and rhetorical

Interested in hearing how a simple "calling the HIP what it is" is "populist and rhetorical"..

Deleted User

Where’s the code for this HIP? Anyway, RIP in peace, DOA on arrival

thanks for the productive input.

KXI

Also worth noting who else owns large fleets of hotspots. Case in point, once a few Pisces got deny listed on 25-Apr and more started getting flagged to deny list review on 26-Apr, two days later it appears roughly 7,000 (I think) went offline mysteriously, and have stayed offline since. CTH Red Team have then since flagged I believe well over this number for deny list review. I.e. seems like there is a large fleet of gaming Pisces under single control. And they are almost certainly not the only large gaming fleet. One might say that even fleets of 10,000 are nothing against a community of 740,000 HS, but it's about who shows up to vote. If 8,000 regular community show up to vote, Mr Big Gamer can swing the whole thing. (edited)

you kind of answered your own question, I think.

The denylist exists as a check on these concerns.

jhbr821

Does anyone know what the terms of this guy’s hosting agreements are? Does he pay out in HNT or fiat? What percentage? I don’t want to overly speculate on his intentions but it almost seems like he’s trying to clawback voting power from his hosts? (Let me know if this comment isn’t allowed)

https://www.internetofwe.net/terms again, nothing to hide here.

1

KXI

It also has 5 clear spelling errors in 400 words, suggesting a lack of care.

man if this isn't a reach idk what is, lol...not sure what that has to do with literally any substance whatsoever but if it's that important to you I'd be more than glad to make corrections to eliminate that distraction.

‍♂️

Anthonyra

I don't think a switch to one-miner one-vote is the correct answer here. I believe there's 3 major parties building the network. Miner, Validators, and Routers. If any one of those stop we wouldn't have Helium. I can also stand behind HNT if you were required to stake that HNT to vote with. However, at a bare minimum HNT is not a security so those who simply own HNT shouldn't have a vote in the network. It is however, the easiest proxy that we have. Ideally, at a minimum each of the above groups should have a voice. But it should be constructed in a way that doesn't make one voice louder than the rest. Hotspots - you sum the accounts miners transmit scales and times the agreed upon valuation of that hardware in USD. If you had 1 miner with 1.0 transmit scale = 500 for example. Validators - the agreed upon valuation of a validator in USD. If you had 1 validator = 150,000 Router - the amount of DC on hand in USD. (I don't run a router so hard to gauge its value but no data is moved without them so their very important) Then for every vote there's separate sub-group votes. Hotspots vs Hotspots, Validators vs Validators, etc. The result of these votes determine the groups vote for the HIP. Supermajority of affected entities is needed to pass. The HIP will describe the entities directly affected by the HIP. Those entities are required to vote (they are the only ones needed to approve the vote) the rest can vote but can only vote against the HIP as a checks and balance. This whole system would need to be ensured to have checks in balances for obvious reasons.

the name in summary seems to have become a distraction; if you check the #hip-discussion channel and I believe the comments on the actual github issue, you'll find that the validators and routers have been discussed as being part of the consideration here.

07:49

https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/395#issuecomment-1113843366

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you kind of answered your own question, I think.

The denylist exists as a check on these concerns.

There are likely 10,000s of gamed miners operating right now not on the denylist, most controlled by a small number of people, and this will likely continue to occur in future as the cat and mouse game goes on. Currently the mouse is doing pretty well. Are you claiming that all gamers are caught immediately? Because that is quite obviously not true.

definitely not trying to "claw back" any control, except from whale holders who don't seem to do any actual work on the network beyond pontificate and throw money at tokens. And to that end I can wholly appreciate the perception of "antagoism" towards said parties, but it's a bit weird in the most literal sense to me that we're so quick to the defense of multimillion $ "investors" but so antagonistic toward smaller deployers who realistically have a few 100 hotspots out of nearly a million at this stage in network growth. it seems rather over stated / backwards. If hosts would like to vote under this proposal [speaking strictly for our own business] we do also offer options to purchase hotspots directly....not to mention the whole point of delegation is such that if you don't like how the part(ies) you're delegating to then you can simply re-issue your delegation to another provider. This would be functionally the same as DPoS with validators.

07:55

speaking for us personally we don't even own the majority of the hotspots we operate, we assist other owners in managing theirs.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

man if this isn't a reach idk what is, lol...not sure what that has to do with literally any substance whatsoever but if it's that important to you I'd be more than glad to make corrections to eliminate that distraction.

‍♂️

You've submitted a proposal to make a large change to a global network. A proposal that affects 100,000s of people and many millions of $ of work & investment. And you didn't spell check it or proof-read it? What kind of impression do you think that gives about the care and attention that went into this? Would you do that in an important professional document?

2

1

KXI

There are likely 10,000s of gamed miners operating right now not on the denylist, most controlled by a small number of people, and this will likely continue to occur in future as the cat and mouse game goes on. Currently the mouse is doing pretty well. Are you claiming that all gamers are caught immediately? Because that is quite obviously not true.

would be definitely interested in a citation of the "10,000s" and how it's being concluded that gaming is going on.

will check that out

I think this is an idea to be considered. As far as I know, none of the governance HIPs have passed. Therefore, we can still explore all the options. Governance by HNT lockup as in HIP 41 has the positive that locking tokens helps reduce liquidity of the token and rewards large investors. On the flip side, I think using HNT lockup favors the early adopter who have tons of HNT because they joined earlier. New players, unless they are super wealthy (aka corporations) to buy large volumes of HNT will not have the same voice. Using another mechanism like miner, validator or router helps level the playing field. I am not saying this HIP is perfect or the answer, but we should explore some more options and not immediately dismiss it.

1

the approach being used with denylist frankly is pretty "guilty until proven innocent" as-is.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

would be definitely interested in a citation of the "10,000s" and how it's being concluded that gaming is going on.

will check that out

So you are saying it's not true that this level of gaming is going on?

07:57

Have you seen the recent picses deny list additions?

07:57

Did you spot the 9,000 deeper miners that got denylisted?

KXI

You've submitted a proposal to make a large change to a global network. A proposal that affects 100,000s of people and many millions of $ of work & investment. And you didn't spell check it or proof-read it? What kind of impression do you think that gives about the care and attention that went into this? Would you do that in an important professional document?

you're talking about literally "5 words" and spelling. don't much appreciate the implied elitism, frankly I don't think others do either. seems like grasping at straws. can we keep the discussion related to the substance of the proposal and not nitpicky edge issues?

2

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

would be definitely interested in a citation of the "10,000s" and how it's being concluded that gaming is going on.

will check that out

BFG Neil said the other day he estimates 50,000 HS are gaming, whether you think that exact figure is accurate, it gives an clear indication about the perceived scale from people in the know

KXI

BFG Neil said the other day he estimates 50,000 HS are gaming, whether you think that exact figure is accurate, it gives an clear indication about the perceived scale from people in the know

like I said, feel free to point me to the citations of those accusations I'll gladly take a look.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Care to point out what parts of the language in the HIP are "emotionally charged"? Glad to clarify or make any appropriate edits to remove any sense of that where applicable.

“Simply holding large balances”, “extremely limited straw polls”, “obviously lacked any official process”

KXI

So you are saying it's not true that this level of gaming is going on?

no, I'm saying you seem to be making vague unfounded claims as far as particular figures.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

no, I'm saying you seem to be making vague unfounded claims as far as particular figures.

You have heard of Deeper yes?

KXI

BFG Neil said the other day he estimates 50,000 HS are gaming, whether you think that exact figure is accurate, it gives an clear indication about the perceived scale from people in the know

BFG said it so it must be true, I guess

HG

“Simply holding large balances”, “extremely limited straw polls”, “obviously lacked any official process”

those are literally just objective statements? I'm sorry they feel emotional to you.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

those are literally just objective statements? I'm sorry they feel emotional to you.

Prove it, hold yourself to the same standards you're throwing at @KXI.

1

I don't think "extremely limited straw polls" would be contested by just about anyone. I wasn't even the first to say it, I was citing something someone else said indirectly.

‍♂️

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Interested in hearing how a simple "calling the HIP what it is" is "populist and rhetorical"..

“One hotspot, one vote” implies “unfairness” which has no meaning in an economic context. Fairness is used to appeal to those feeling shorted by a process or system. This is populism. (edited)

1

KXI

You have heard of Deeper yes?

yes, and COTX, and PantnerX

groot

Prove it, hold yourself to the same standards you're throwing at @KXI.

"prove" what, exactly?

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I don't think "extremely limited straw polls" would be contested by just about anyone. I wasn't even the first to say it, I was citing something someone else said indirectly.

‍♂️

I agree that they are limited, but the word extremely isn’t necessary and shows bias

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

yes, and COTX, and PantnerX

Great. And how many Deeper miners were denylisted as a result of the MOC decision?

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

"prove" what, exactly?

"extremely limited straw polls", "obviously lacked any official process". How were they limited, and how was did it obviously lack any official process. (edited)

groot

Prove it, hold yourself to the same standards you're throwing at @KXI.

it's called burden of proof I didn't invent it.

‍♂️ https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/#:~:text=The%20burden%20of%20proof%20fallacy%20is%20a%20logical%20fallacy%20that,shifting%20it%20to%20someone%20else.

Itamar Shatz

The Burden of Proof: Why People Should Support Their Claims

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

those are literally just objective statements? I'm sorry they feel emotional to you.

Simply is a word that trivializes the ability for one to hold large amount of tokens

HG

I agree that they are limited, but the word extremely isn’t necessary and shows bias

eh, I'll grant it's subjective. can change it if it's of that much import.

You are leading the reader to feel a certain way about those holding large balances

not sure what other definition of "extremely" would be appropriate to you or others though...straw polls on discord were literally <100 people voting while that was the method being used

KXI

Great. And how many Deeper miners were denylisted as a result of the MOC decision?

first off you're moving the goalpost here as you stated: there are likely 10,000s of gamed miners operating right now not on the denylist

The antagonism around this amazes me just as much as anything tbh. But I probably shouldn't be surprised when there is an inherent financial interest vested in the subject. The fact that it comes up so often probably says there's something there to be addressed as opposed to being dismissed

Ya, I don't fault the HIP for your background owning a hosting company. You're right about the financial interest part making people suspect motives immediately. From an outside perspective it seems obvious to me someone was going to attack you with: "of COURSE you're writing a HIP that personally benefits you" but that's hindsight. That doesn't mean the HIP is wrong or a bad idea, but it's sort of an easy obvious attack to defend against. You either say it here (like you did), but I know people will miss in backscroll, or you put it in the HIP.

1

you weren't talking about "conclusively" decided gaming units, you were talking about presently gaming and undetermined gaming units.

krby

The antagonism around this amazes me just as much as anything tbh. But I probably shouldn't be surprised when there is an inherent financial interest vested in the subject. The fact that it comes up so often probably says there's something there to be addressed as opposed to being dismissed

Ya, I don't fault the HIP for your background owning a hosting company. You're right about the financial interest part making people suspect motives immediately. From an outside perspective it seems obvious to me someone was going to attack you with: "of COURSE you're writing a HIP that personally benefits you" but that's hindsight. That doesn't mean the HIP is wrong or a bad idea, but it's sort of an easy obvious attack to defend against. You either say it here (like you did), but I know people will miss in backscroll, or you put it in the HIP.

The thing is that this HIP is a bad idea

HG

Simply is a word that trivializes the ability for one to hold large amount of tokens

as it should be [IMO], what effort or contribution to the network is required to just buy and hold? (arguably what validators are for if anything) but again if you really want to get to the level of pedantry where you're debating semantics and subjectively interpreted emphasis then there's no reason that can be changed. (edited)

Maybe if you'd stop using all those ridiculous enormous amazing hyperboles towards everyone who dares to disagree with you this could actually be a discussion on merit. Instead you seem intent on creating enemies by throwing shade every time someone disagrees with you.

2

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

as it should be [IMO], what effort or contribution to the network is required to just buy and hold? (arguably what validators are for if anything) but again if you really want to get to the level of pedantry where you're debating semantics and subjectively interpreted emphasis then there's no reason that can be changed. (edited)

They are HNT value which is what supports the network. (edited)

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

like I said, feel free to point me to the citations of those accusations I'll gladly take a look.

Have a look at the recent pisces additions: For example: https://github.com/helium/denylist/issues/4491 out of many 1,000s of Pisces flagged for review in the last few days https://github.com/helium/denylist/issues/created_by/CTH-Red-Team-Mapping-Service-I004?page=4&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+author%3ACTH-Red-Team-Mapping-Service-I004 What you seem to be saying is 'i refuse to believe that gaming is occurring on any scale until it is definitely proven that these ones are gaming and even then that doesn't prove anyone else is doing it'. Seriously, come on. Even if you think CTH is being trigger-happy here, you can't deny there is significant suspicious activity, and that handling 'control' of the network over to large HS owners isn't therefore a big possible risk?

[Addition]: Same maker witnessing cluster · Issue #4491 · helium/de...

Hotspot b58 Addresses 11YWGMoFu3hyWp2ExRFTK6WYHPCf894T2BRBPbHW2gK4XKW5sC4 11Yfmn6pL4jjDF8LgLncfTdMqP7dGs95PaakzeTyL2HQt6qna9U 11xGUVyUYL7uMCgkaoPPQoSCNEjoZ612peP8E9L446tpo4o2wd5 11x45xprupjyNHPnv4P...

Issues · helium/denylist

Contribute to helium/denylist development by creating an account on GitHub.

HG

The thing is that this HIP is a bad idea

Sure, but the author's motivation or suspected motivation is not arguments against the HIP. (edited)

Should be mentioned that the vote for the “one miner one vote” vote, will be balloted just like any other HIP.

And I will debate language used because a HIP is not a persuasive piece of writing it is a technical document. (edited)

1

08:11

There shouldn’t be any use of emotive conjugation.

krby

The antagonism around this amazes me just as much as anything tbh. But I probably shouldn't be surprised when there is an inherent financial interest vested in the subject. The fact that it comes up so often probably says there's something there to be addressed as opposed to being dismissed

Ya, I don't fault the HIP for your background owning a hosting company. You're right about the financial interest part making people suspect motives immediately. From an outside perspective it seems obvious to me someone was going to attack you with: "of COURSE you're writing a HIP that personally benefits you" but that's hindsight. That doesn't mean the HIP is wrong or a bad idea, but it's sort of an easy obvious attack to defend against. You either say it here (like you did), but I know people will miss in backscroll, or you put it in the HIP.

mainly what gets me on this is that people somehow look past the larger influence whale holders have in present form but somehow manage to find the flaw in comparably much smaller entities actually providing coverage. but you are correct in that it shouldn't come as much a surprise. why I said above "well have to wait and see how the community feels about it". messenger [should be] less important than the message.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you weren't talking about "conclusively" decided gaming units, you were talking about presently gaming and undetermined gaming units.

Right - so you're saying 'just because it happened before doesn't mean it will happen again' - sure. But don't you think it's a little bit likely it COULD happen? And then when there's pretty good evidence from the last few days that it IS happening?

krby

Sure, but the author's motivation or suspected motivation is not arguments against the HIP. (edited)

part of the HIP process is refining the proposal, so it's also kinda weird to me that (in general) people seem to just read HIPs at face value. There is ample opportunity to work through changes and discussions of said changes before the HIP is ultimately voted on and/or implemented.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

part of the HIP process is refining the proposal, so it's also kinda weird to me that (in general) people seem to just read HIPs at face value. There is ample opportunity to work through changes and discussions of said changes before the HIP is ultimately voted on and/or implemented.

I agree with this

1

I only initiate HIPs to start a conversation. I can't speak for the entire community. If anything it's to solicit public feedback.

‍♂️

The community with the largest voting power is the said whales. Why would they vote to change that?

groot

Maybe if you'd stop using all those ridiculous enormous amazing hyperboles towards everyone who dares to disagree with you this could actually be a discussion on merit. Instead you seem intent on creating enemies by throwing shade every time someone disagrees with you.

maybe if you stop having an axe to grind and taking issues with semantic considerations aside from reading through semantics to the underlying intent, we wouldn't lose the forest through the trees...

lol

Deleted User

The community with the largest voting power is the said whales. Why would they vote to change that?

good question. don't think this is at odds with anything I've said or suggested. you pretty much just tacitly stated there's a conflict of interest....

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

maybe if you stop having an axe to grind and taking issues with semantic considerations aside from reading through semantics to the underlying intent, we wouldn't lose the forest through the trees...

Coming from the man who got axed for breaking every rule in #rules after/during our last discussion where I approached this HIP at face value only to get butchered for it. Good luck with your HIP.

This is one of those situations where diplomacy rather than a blunt instrument is required. But based on this discussion so far I’m not seeing that being a likely outcome

HG

The thing is that this HIP is a bad idea

I don't believe you've stated a material reason as to why.

krby

Sure, but the author's motivation or suspected motivation is not arguments against the HIP. (edited)

100% agreed. Attacking the person behind the HiP is bad faith arguing 101

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I don't believe you've stated a material reason as to why.

I didn’t that is correct. Need time to articulate

HG

They are HNT value which is what supports the network. (edited)

so then the network is a speculative vehicle for capital returns then, eh? Not a utility network for secure and cost effective data transfer?

08:18

that's basically how I read that position

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

so then the network is a speculative vehicle for capital returns then, eh? Not a utility network for secure and cost effective data transfer?

No it’s a capital markets mechanism to incentivize economic activity. HNT having a non-zero value is a critical component to that mechanism.

3

groot

Coming from the man who got axed for breaking every rule in #rules after/during our last discussion where I approached this HIP at face value only to get butchered for it. Good luck with your HIP.

care to cite what rules those are that are violated? you seem awfully concerned with personal grievance and ignoring the substance of the HIP as I've asked we refocus to a few times now.

08:19

If you have any personal issues feel free to take those to DMs, otherwise please keep the discourse relevant to the substance of the HIP.

I’d argue that those providing the marginal demand for HNT at this point in the network build out are the most valuable contributors (edited)

HG

No it’s a capital markets mechanism to incentivize economic activity. HNT having a non-zero value is a critical component to that mechanism.

so then the only way to achieve "non-zero value" is by taking investment capital from speculating entities?

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

so then the only way to achieve "non-zero value" is by taking investment capital from speculating entities?

Yes that is how capital markets work

1

you won't find me arguing that speculators / "investors" are key in early stages. I've simply stated over and over again what is the shelf life or the point of diminishing returns on that early investment

08:21

it certainly isnt forever and always until the end of time. that's irrational

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you won't find me arguing that speculators / "investors" are key in early stages. I've simply stated over and over again what is the shelf life or the point of diminishing returns on that early investment

The network has basically no demand side burn rn so we aren’t close to that point

there should be more incentive to use the HNT in the network. You can just as easily "speculate" by staking validators. Just holding the token in a wallet in and of itself doesn't really do anything productive

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

there should be more incentive to use the HNT in the network. You can just as easily "speculate" by staking validators. Just holding the token in a wallet in and of itself doesn't really do anything productive

Yes it does. It supports the value of HNT (edited)

HG

Yes that is how capital markets work

lmao no it certainly is not

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

there should be more incentive to use the HNT in the network. You can just as easily "speculate" by staking validators. Just holding the token in a wallet in and of itself doesn't really do anything productive

It does. You had to acquire the tokens for some value, which causes the value of the network as a whole to increase (typically). Without speculation none of you would be here. That’s not a negative thing. It’s the purpose of crypto economic models

literally the entire purpose of "token economics". None of that intrinsically requires strictly holding entities. You seem to be missing the point that you can still achieve capital speculation through staking validators and other mechanisms that actually materially provide a utility service to the network function in and of itself.

You’re opinion on the value of capital allocators is biased via the media narrative (edited)

I'm not seeing why it's so important to just hold a balance in a wallet. In fact if you're not willing to stake in a 5 month period (or frankly even less in the case of delegating to pools) then I would question how "invested" you really are.

Our job, as miners in the Helium Network is not to collect HNT. Our job is to expand the network, and thus, get rewarded with HNT. One Hotspot, one vote, is a start. I still feel that a person who is actively working to expand the network should have a more weighted vote than those who bought a miner and "set it and forget it". Many of these hotspots are found in heavily conjested areas that are doing little to expand the network. I like the idea of weighted votes based on Transmit scales. This would help to motivate others to move their stagnant hotspots to areas that would expand the network and give them better rewards. We are a community working together to build something. Those that are "working" should be rewarded with "more say" in the direction of the project. (edited)

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I'm not seeing why it's so important to just hold a balance in a wallet. In fact if you're not willing to stake in a 5 month period (or frankly even less in the case of delegating to pools) then I would question how "invested" you really are.

It supports the value of HNT

@HG has exactly the correct explanation for how this works and why it matters

capcom

It does. You had to acquire the tokens for some value, which causes the value of the network as a whole to increase (typically). Without speculation none of you would be here. That’s not a negative thing. It’s the purpose of crypto economic models

should probably clarify, the issue is less with "speculation" writ large and more with "unproductive" speculation. Something that isn't furthering the utility of the network itself (data transfer, securing transactions, routing data)

Just screen grabbed that hat tip!

Jeff USMC🦅🌎⚓🇺🇸

Our job, as miners in the Helium Network is not to collect HNT. Our job is to expand the network, and thus, get rewarded with HNT. One Hotspot, one vote, is a start. I still feel that a person who is actively working to expand the network should have a more weighted vote than those who bought a miner and "set it and forget it". Many of these hotspots are found in heavily conjested areas that are doing little to expand the network. I like the idea of weighted votes based on Transmit scales. This would help to motivate others to move their stagnant hotspots to areas that would expand the network and give them better rewards. We are a community working together to build something. Those that are "working" should be rewarded with "more say" in the direction of the project. (edited)

I think there was a good idea suggested above about also adding some kind of above and beyond weight to votes, like the transmit scale for example.

1

capcom

@HG has exactly the correct explanation for how this works and why it matters

you're still really only swaying me in seed stages of network development. I haven't really seen any response as to what the shelf life of that usefulness is.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

should probably clarify, the issue is less with "speculation" writ large and more with "unproductive" speculation. Something that isn't furthering the utility of the network itself (data transfer, securing transactions, routing data)

It’s ok to disagree on what is productive and what isn’t. But it’s important to understand how much of the value of HNT and helium today exists because of speculators. Again it’s not a bad thing. It’s why public market companies have varying P/E ratios

1M hotspots (and continuing to grow) hardly seems like seed stage anymore

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you're still really only swaying me in seed stages of network development. I haven't really seen any response as to what the shelf life of that usefulness is.

It’s simple. HNT value would only be equal to DC burn

capcom

It’s simple. HNT value would only be equal to DC burn

and that's problematic...how

08:27

isn't that the whole premise of PoC to DT transition?

"seed stage" isn't just based on the size of the network. It's based on use too.

If I have to explain that then we’re in a bad starting place

all I'm suggesting is that there is an equally diminishing value of value of seed stage raw capital investment

08:28

can we can an answer though on "why can't these individuals just stake in a validator"

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

isn't that the whole premise of PoC to DT transition?

Yea but it happens organically as defined by the protocol today. DC eats away at PoC, but only when it happens

it's not like the proposed change inhibits those from speculating. it's just asking they put the stake towards some productive use that isn't subject to sporadic dumping

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

can we can an answer though on "why can't these individuals just stake in a validator"

Many do. Almost every large holder does today

jhbr821

"seed stage" isn't just based on the size of the network. It's based on use too.

what scale of use would you say defines that point then?

capcom

Yea but it happens organically as defined by the protocol today. DC eats away at PoC, but only when it happens

then we should be doing more to ensure that happens..."number go up" is a terrible long term strategy on a fundamental level

It’s not really the point though. The point is that HNT holders are extraordinarily valuable to the ecosystem, and this HIP does nothing to recognize that

capcom

Many do. Almost every large holder does today

then I don't see the problem here.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

then we should be doing more to ensure that happens..."number go up" is a terrible long term strategy on a fundamental level

Agreed, unrelated to this discussion

capcom

It’s not really the point though. The point is that HNT holders are extraordinarily valuable to the ecosystem, and this HIP does nothing to recognize that

not arguing that holders aren't valuable. simply asking "why is it apparently such a controversial issue that they simply stake if they want to vote"?

I’d suggest voting by token lock is better in that case

You can still hold and speculate as you did before. You just don't vote.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

what scale of use would you say defines that point then?

Hypothetically when revenue approaches equilibrium valuation suggested by DC burn. I think the standard for a business is valuation of ~4x revenue. Right now it's ~33x.

capcom

I’d suggest voting by token lock is better in that case

so validators with extra steps

I think that’s a disservice to a very well thought out hip

that HIP was proposed 6 months ago and has gone nowhere. it seems pretty DOA to me...

Personally still feels like the right approach. But no way we have time to implement it anytime soon and it came with no code

even in the hip channel Tushar himself says it's been scrapped

08:36

I'd also ask, if HNT is the mechanism for speculative investment, why do HSTs exist

To reward the initial investors and team. Completely unrelated points

not at all

08:36

entirely related.

HST is just time locked HNT in absence of a pre mine. It has no bearing on how others speculate

I am starting to lose the back and forth here. Can all values of the network be considered here? Large HNT holders can still be incorporated with large holders of hotspots, both having a relatively equal voting power? The challenge here is dividing what value is an investment and when. Acquiring HNT way-back-when was "cheaper" and "easier". If the bases of an argument is "They were early investors" I personally think that is invalid, they reap the rewards of that investment in another form, and that should not be in voting power directly. (edited)

I'm interested in the arbitrary delineating line between those that are provided HSTs and those that should just speculate (because HNT isn't a security, as well all recall) via HNT

capcom

HST is just time locked HNT in absence of a pre mine. It has no bearing on how others speculate

so again, pre mine with extra steps. lol

08:37

the semantic hoops are weird man

Sure, if you like

just call it what it is.

I think it’s a lot more fair than a pre mine but that’s just my opinion

Fizzy

I am starting to lose the back and forth here. Can all values of the network be considered here? Large HNT holders can still be incorporated with large holders of hotspots, both having a relatively equal voting power? The challenge here is dividing what value is an investment and when. Acquiring HNT way-back-when was "cheaper" and "easier". If the bases of an argument is "They were early investors" I personally think that is invalid, they reap the rewards of that investment in another form, and that should not be in voting power directly. (edited)

They also took on a much greater risk at the time

capcom

I think it’s a lot more fair than a pre mine but that’s just my opinion

elaborate?

08:38

why is it more fair?

I’m not aware of any pre mine tokens that are locked over a 50 year period

why does the lock make it more "fair" though?

08:39

sure it maybe prevents some large scale dumping

08:39

but not sure what that has to do with "fair"

Because it incentivizes the participants to continue to add value and be aligned economically with the networks success. The same reason that stock vests. Also getting off topic

jhbr821

They also took on a much greater risk at the time

"At the time"? That is hindsight. Everything could be downhill from here, risk is the same anywhere you are. I'll reiterate that acquiring HNT way-back-when was "cheaper" and "easier".

1

I’ve also run out of time, Godspeed

Fizzy

I am starting to lose the back and forth here. Can all values of the network be considered here? Large HNT holders can still be incorporated with large holders of hotspots, both having a relatively equal voting power? The challenge here is dividing what value is an investment and when. Acquiring HNT way-back-when was "cheaper" and "easier". If the bases of an argument is "They were early investors" I personally think that is invalid, they reap the rewards of that investment in another form, and that should not be in voting power directly. (edited)

honestly it's not so much about the holders it's more about the fact that they can buy and dump solely for the purposes of goosing votes

08:40

if you require some network involvement they can't take the HNT back out once it's been spent on onboarding/assertion, DC loading into console, staked in validators

capcom

I’ve also run out of time, Godspeed

thanks for the time.

Fizzy

"At the time"? That is hindsight. Everything could be downhill from here, risk is the same anywhere you are. I'll reiterate that acquiring HNT way-back-when was "cheaper" and "easier".

I think that's a frankly ridiculous statement. Risk is not constant. Of course it always is present but it is not equal. It's far riskier to invest in something that literally no one is using at the time.

capcom

Because it incentivizes the participants to continue to add value and be aligned economically with the networks success. The same reason that stock vests. Also getting off topic

respectfully disagree that it's off topic, but neither here nor there.

08:41

we're talking about stake in network development, so it seems pretty relevant.

‍♂️

jhbr821

I think that's a frankly ridiculous statement. Risk is not constant. Of course it always is present but it is not equal. It's far riskier to invest in something that literally no one is using at the time.

I don't think they said risk is constant. if anything I think you suggested that by implying there is a linear trend of risk that was higher at one point in the past and lower now

08:43

careful of those "emotionally suggestive terms", by the way.

jhbr821

I think that's a frankly ridiculous statement. Risk is not constant. Of course it always is present but it is not equal. It's far riskier to invest in something that literally no one is using at the time.

But you just said it was riskier? What makes that determination that it was more risky of a project? That sounds like a personal opinion. Like I said it could all be down hill from now, and that new "Investor" would have had more "Risk" because he was late, not early. Again, hindsight. (edited)

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I don't think they said risk is constant. if anything I think you suggested that by implying there is a linear trend of risk that was higher at one point in the past and lower now

You contradicted yourself there.

Fizzy

But you just said it was riskier? What makes that determination that it was more risky of a project? That sounds like a personal opinion. Like I said it could all be down hill from now, and that new "Investor" would have had more "Risk" because he was late, not early. Again, hindsight. (edited)

Sure exact risk can only be decided in hindsight. But on a macrolevel, it is riskier to invest in something that does not have a product and which no one is using. That's why Nova Labs valuation has increased.

nova labs valuation should move based on their isolated contributions to development etc. Not on token economics. but again getting into another tangent

08:48

we've been doing this weird public/private dance for 18+ months now so it's nothing new

08:49

why I brought up HSTs. HSTs are effectively an early investor premium pseduo-pre mine which arguably should / could have just been simple equity stake in helium, inc (nova labs). But that's not how they decided to go about it.

08:49

the fact that HSTs even exist has kind of trapped the entire network in this back and forth over security/not a security

08:50

would have made much more sense in hindsight [IMO] to have just had investors (e.g. multicoin) invest in equity holdings in helium,inc rather than mint a special kind of delayed release premine that's intrinsically linked to the chain itself. It's not allowing the network tokenomics to free float as much as ideal

jhbr821

Sure exact risk can only be decided in hindsight. But on a macrolevel, it is riskier to invest in something that does not have a product and which no one is using. That's why Nova Labs valuation has increased.

Yes, and early investors have reaped the rewards. (now lets move the topic back on track) But that does not mean they should have more voting power by HNT holders alone. Do we have Elon or any of the other wealthiest people on the earth controlling the votes? Maybe in their own company.... And this is where Chris V and I collide points lol.

1

I kind of don't really understand frankly why the investments which got HSTs weren't just simply buying hotspot hardware and deploying it. ironically what current operator businesses are catching flak for...actually, materially deploying the network.

08:53

money in and of itself doesn't grow the network. that money is just being delegated downstream to those actually deploying the network. that's really all this attempts to get at....reward the people doing work, not the people signing checks.

08:54

sorry not sorry for the characterization. it's my opinion that others are free to disagree with.

08:55

on a much larger scale this conversation essentially boils down to the merits of PoS vs PoW

‍♂️

Chris, I feel like your HIP title needs to be changed if you and I truly on the same page that this needs to be more than what the title suggests. To be complex to the point where it makes most happy, and the rest so confused they accept it. (like the math on transmit scale) (edited)

Helium has tried to play this hybrid middle ground where it's kind of sort of PoW in some aspects, kind of sort of PoS in others. Hence probably a large part of the contention between proponents of one vs the other.

Fizzy

Chris, I feel like your HIP title needs to be changed if you and I truly on the same page that this needs to be more than what the title suggests. To be complex to the point where it makes most happy, and the rest so confused they accept it. (like the math on transmit scale) (edited)

title is fairly arbitrary within reason...what would you suggest

08:57

it is slightly pejorative, I can grant

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

title is fairly arbitrary within reason...what would you suggest

Well, to me it vibes as a chant at a protest. Just sayin. lol

1

Fizzy

Well, to me it vibes as a chant at a protest. Just sayin. lol

This was my point

08:59

Not appropriate for a technical document.

only so much descriptive language to fit in a title...lol

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

only so much descriptive language to fit in a title...lol

hip-60-voting-scales

HG

Not appropriate for a technical document.

also materially irrelevant to substance

‍♂️

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

also materially irrelevant to substance

‍♂️

It exposes the true motivation of the HIP

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

also materially irrelevant to substance

‍♂️

Right, but people are going to read this hip channel, not the hip itself for the most part. unless the title is more vague.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

would have made much more sense in hindsight [IMO] to have just had investors (e.g. multicoin) invest in equity holdings in helium,inc rather than mint a special kind of delayed release premine that's intrinsically linked to the chain itself. It's not allowing the network tokenomics to free float as much as ideal

I think you misunderstand where value lives. As with pretty much every VC backed chain, the founding team has no business or revenue model (see Solana labs, uniswap labs, Ava labs, etc). Their role is to advance the network. As such you could argue the equity is actually meaningless, as there is no value being created for shareholders. Many of those teams actually have no equity structure (like protocol labs). The investment is in the network, and the value of the network is reflected in the native token. So investing in nova equity is completely unrelated to the value of the network. This is true for every single VC backed chain, and why premines exist. If the team or investors had no economic upside in the network itself none of us would bother building any of these things

HG

It exposes the true motivation of the HIP

you're reading way too much into it. Just argue the merits, please.

capcom

I think you misunderstand where value lives. As with pretty much every VC backed chain, the founding team has no business or revenue model (see Solana labs, uniswap labs, Ava labs, etc). Their role is to advance the network. As such you could argue the equity is actually meaningless, as there is no value being created for shareholders. Many of those teams actually have no equity structure (like protocol labs). The investment is in the network, and the value of the network is reflected in the native token. So investing in nova equity is completely unrelated to the value of the network. This is true for every single VC backed chain, and why premines exist. If the team or investors had no economic upside in the network itself none of us would bother building any of these things

I think you have conflicts of interest, with all due respect. Not meant to be contentious. Just a statement of opinion.

Irrelevant to the point I made. Of course I have conflicts of interest

Or at least disagreements on how the helium / nova relationship should be structured

09:06

lmao a conflict of interest is never irrelevant

09:07

but if you say so, agree to disagree.

Just trying to illustrate how all of these networks are structured economically as you seem confused about nova equity vs helium network value

not confused...wish you would respectfully stop conflating disagreement with misunderstanding.

09:08

they're historically and materially linked, you can't just sidestep the fact that they impact each other because it's inconvenient.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you're reading way too much into it. Just argue the merits, please.

Sorry but it’s extremely important

I'm well aware of the history involving helium inc the private business and the transition to a public / open source project

Cool. Not sure I have much else to add so I’ll really bow out this time. Good luck with the HIP

HG

Sorry but it’s extremely important

to you, maybe

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

to you, maybe

It demonstrates that there is a lack of economic justification for the hip because you are playing to fairness and emotion

HG

It demonstrates that there is a lack of economic justification for the hip because you are playing to fairness and emotion

you literally have not made a single material argument here beyond your projected emotional inferences..so please address that before you continue accusing others of having strictly emotional motives.

The feedback thus far is pretty concise.

Deleted User

The feedback thus far is pretty concise.

the channel has been up for hours...relax.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

you literally have not made a single material argument here beyond your projected emotional inferences..so please address that before you continue accusing others of having strictly emotional motives.

The meaning and effect of language is factual (edited)

there's like 5 people who have weighed in. So thanks for underscoring the point further on how little input it takes some people here to unilaterally decide their opinion is the right one on behalf of the entire 800K+ hotspot network

HG

The meaning and effect of language is factual (edited)

no, it isn't. Because as the author I've repeatedly told you you're reading way too much into it.

09:14

Again, respectfully, please stop putting words and intentions into my mouth & head for me.

09:14

the confusion & assumptions are merited and valid. You continued insistance that you know my thoughts better than I do is not.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Again, respectfully, please stop putting words and intentions into my mouth & head for me.

You wrote the words down. They have meaning defined by a dictionary as well as contextually meaning

Just stop.

Okay

thank you

09:15

I anxiously await reasoned arguments transcending emotional inference.

09:15

Until then, please...we get it. You don't like the naming conventions.

Sure. You can direct people who share the same sentiments as you here later but I doubt whether the validity of your arguments will hold.

duly noted.

You literally had the founder here giving you reasoned arguments lol

https://discord.gg/PHCurDuM?event=966745341070307328

Deleted User

Sure. You can direct people who share the same sentiments as you here later but I doubt whether the validity of your arguments will hold.

validity of my arguments hasn't been contested. just character assassination / ad hominem, personal grievance and emotionally loaded hand waving.

Deleted User

You literally had the founder here giving you reasoned arguments lol

the founder is not a king or an infallible god (edited)

this hip will be discussed in the voice call, fyi.

pretty sure he. himself would attest to that.

09:17

its' really actually legitimately strange and weird that you view that as reason in and of itself. there's a name for that...appeal to authority.

lol okay, I didn’t say he’s a king, and yes, it’s fine to sometimes appeal to authority. You claim character assassination but we all know that you have a record of prior infractions that stemmed from this kind of reaction. (edited)

it's fine to take it into consideration, authority in and of itself is not a valid reason.

09:20

I have a prior record of being disagreeable, which apparently is not allowed here.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

validity of my arguments hasn't been contested. just character assassination / ad hominem, personal grievance and emotionally loaded hand waving.

It was 100% contested during the discussion of capital market incentives (edited)

you seem awfully keen to be a provocateur yourself so let's take it easy lol

It’s nothing about you being disagreeable. It’s your tone and attitude bro. That’s all

1

I think there is definitely room for us to optimise votes around network identities, but I am concerned that this hugely disenfranchises validators. The reality is that a single validator represents a much greater investment in the network than a single miner, but validators would be outnumbered something like 300:1, rendering them effectively powerless. A better approach would be to create weighted cohorts. For example, miners might have 40% weight, validators have 30%, routers 20%, etc.. A simple 1 vote per identity mechanism is basically handing entire control of voting to miners, which is not the best way to distribute power in the network.

3

Thank you ChrisV for preparing this. I respect your desire to propel the network forward and address voting issues. Although this hip would give me an advantage in voting over some, while others would have an advantage over me (due to # of hotspots deployed), I just cant get behind this HIP. I never thought that I would say this, . . . but vote by token lock is the best option I have seen.

3

2

AlexC

I think there is definitely room for us to optimise votes around network identities, but I am concerned that this hugely disenfranchises validators. The reality is that a single validator represents a much greater investment in the network than a single miner, but validators would be outnumbered something like 300:1, rendering them effectively powerless. A better approach would be to create weighted cohorts. For example, miners might have 40% weight, validators have 30%, routers 20%, etc.. A simple 1 vote per identity mechanism is basically handing entire control of voting to miners, which is not the best way to distribute power in the network.

Agree 100% with this sentiment. Cross-posting my similar comment from #community-call-chat here for ease of reference.

We've thought about this at Helium Rising, but a compelling way to do voting is to sub-divide the vote into an odd number of factions, let's say "hotspot owners", "validator operators", and "HST holders", then take the outcomes in the respective factions to determine the actual vote. For example, within those factions mentioned above, votes are made and an outcome is achieved per faction. Then, the faction outcomes are bubbled up to the actual vote where a majority of factions wins. Doing voting as such would give a clearer signal to the network's true intentions, based on all participants by equal weight.

1

deasydoesit

Agree 100% with this sentiment. Cross-posting my similar comment from #community-call-chat here for ease of reference.

We've thought about this at Helium Rising, but a compelling way to do voting is to sub-divide the vote into an odd number of factions, let's say "hotspot owners", "validator operators", and "HST holders", then take the outcomes in the respective factions to determine the actual vote. For example, within those factions mentioned above, votes are made and an outcome is achieved per faction. Then, the faction outcomes are bubbled up to the actual vote where a majority of factions wins. Doing voting as such would give a clearer signal to the network's true intentions, based on all participants by equal weight.

Yes! There are many different types of stakeholder in the network, but this HIP as it currently stands is weighted almost entirely in favour of miners.

AlexC

I think there is definitely room for us to optimise votes around network identities, but I am concerned that this hugely disenfranchises validators. The reality is that a single validator represents a much greater investment in the network than a single miner, but validators would be outnumbered something like 300:1, rendering them effectively powerless. A better approach would be to create weighted cohorts. For example, miners might have 40% weight, validators have 30%, routers 20%, etc.. A simple 1 vote per identity mechanism is basically handing entire control of voting to miners, which is not the best way to distribute power in the network.

This. I would like people to start thinking about managing weights to each participants. But be mindful of time-line, it was cheaper to get a validator way back when. So if you assign a $ cost to one ecosystem, it would need to be applied to other ecosystems to keep it fair.

AlexC

Yes! There are many different types of stakeholder in the network, but this HIP as it currently stands is weighted almost entirely in favour of miners.

Indeed. The diversity in network participants is one of the strengths of the network as various unique, but mutually aligned, perspectives all come together to push the network forward. Sidelining everyone but hotspot owners would be a huge loss for the network's diversity.

Fizzy

This. I would like people to start thinking about managing weights to each participants. But be mindful of time-line, it was cheaper to get a validator way back when. So if you assign a $ cost to one ecosystem, it would need to be applied to other ecosystems to keep it fair.

Yep. Perhaps it's not best to think about it in terms of $ cost, but in terms of value to the ecosystem. Everyone plays an important role here, and we need a group of voters representing miners just as much as we need a group of votes representing validators. A 300:1 weighting derived from a simple 1 identity, 1 vote system would miss important voices.

1

I understand that installing hotspots is good for the ecosystem, but isn't buying HNT good for the ecosystem as well? If no one's buying it, then wouldn't the value drop?

This would remove the stake/ voting power of all investor, Nova Labs and everyone commercially interested building on the network other than mining. I highly disagree even though it wouldn't affect me personally

AlexC

I think there is definitely room for us to optimise votes around network identities, but I am concerned that this hugely disenfranchises validators. The reality is that a single validator represents a much greater investment in the network than a single miner, but validators would be outnumbered something like 300:1, rendering them effectively powerless. A better approach would be to create weighted cohorts. For example, miners might have 40% weight, validators have 30%, routers 20%, etc.. A simple 1 vote per identity mechanism is basically handing entire control of voting to miners, which is not the best way to distribute power in the network.

validators are included in the discussion. https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/395#issuecomment-1113843366

09:57

I clearly underestimated how distracting the particulars of "hotspot" or "miner" would be in the title....lol.

09:58

what about "HIP-60 : Stake-Weighted Vote"

@🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ I like the Idea of this hip and think it's a great Idea thanks for proposing it. I know you had mentioned to add some sort of scaler for, value of vote = to reward scale of miner. I would hope we don't go this direction as it punishes anyone who lives in a major city where a majority of miners exist. As someone who has put considerable effort, time and monetary expenses into deploying professional roof deployments in an effort to provide coverage for the network. I feel very much that using reward scale in any way to contribution the value of your one miner one vote would be a critical mistake. (edited)

gtelnet

I understand that installing hotspots is good for the ecosystem, but isn't buying HNT good for the ecosystem as well? If no one's buying it, then wouldn't the value drop?

not in and of itself. just buying and holding a token unless actively staked within the network (validators, hotspots, routers) is more or less gambling on number go up. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why speculators can't simply speculate via staked entities (hotspots/validators/routers). (edited)

10:00

The price should frankly be based on utility of the network. Price speculation is not utility.

sla1n

This would remove the stake/ voting power of all investor, Nova Labs and everyone commercially interested building on the network other than mining. I highly disagree even though it wouldn't affect me personally

It wouldn't. They would just have to put their HNT into hotspots, validators, or routers.

Someone holding 10M$ worth of HNT is supposed to buy hotspots or validators to get a small share of the voting power they currently have? Imho not an option

sla1n

Someone holding 10M$ worth of HNT is supposed to buy hotspots or validators to get a small share of the voting power they currently have? Imho not an option

10M in validators isn't as much as you think it is

10:02

each one is 10k HNT which is currently $150,000 each

10:02

That's about 66 validators

That's 66 validators to be run. And they are not always interested in locking up their coin for 5months

if you're not interested in a time horizon of only 5 months then you're just further proving my point that you're not actually invested in the network

10:03

lol

10:03

even still, there are pools which allow you to unstake more frequently than 5 months if you really must do so

I appreciate your idea of empowering the community, but I don't see this passing

#helium-rising for example has exit liquidity more often than 5 months afaik

10:05

sorry but I get pretty frustrated with the pessimism of "I don't see this passing" sentiment, as it doesn't really invalidate the fundamental proposition, it just takes a jaded outlook on the ability to drive value through utility

10:05

and lack of faith in reasoned voting.

10:05

not a personal criticism.

Helium Mob #00

@🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡ I like the Idea of this hip and think it's a great Idea thanks for proposing it. I know you had mentioned to add some sort of scaler for, value of vote = to reward scale of miner. I would hope we don't go this direction as it punishes anyone who lives in a major city where a majority of miners exist. As someone who has put considerable effort, time and monetary expenses into deploying professional roof deployments in an effort to provide coverage for the network. I feel very much that using reward scale in any way to contribution the value of your one miner one vote would be a critical mistake. (edited)

the transmit scale suggestion was not originally mine and is only a starting point to illustrate there are likely options out there to use as metrics. although I would say isn't that what the transmit scale does to you situation as-is? Your earnings are effected by density. The whole point of hex density is to discourage people from piling on top of one another.

10:08

it's somewhat subjective of course how much value each network entity / class adds relative to others. I could see arguments in all directions.

10:08

Until light hotspots I would have said hotspots are the most valuable to the network as they're the ones doing the "boots on the ground" transference of data. But now validators are a bit more essential.

10:09

and routers have been a "public good" more or less until recently when nova started the push to have them privately owned and operated.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

not in and of itself. just buying and holding a token unless actively staked within the network (validators, hotspots, routers) is more or less gambling on number go up. I have yet to see a strong argument as to why speculators can't simply speculate via staked entities (hotspots/validators/routers). (edited)

There are a few economic reasons why a "speculator" would not want to stake. In most crypto protocols today (whether it be Helium or a DeFi protocol), staking a token often constrains liquidity. Additionally, staking a token brings upon additional tax considerations depending on jurisdiction. If a "speculator" wants to just buy and hold a token, any taxable events are deferred until they sell the token. If a "speculator" is forced to stake a token, they would then have annual taxable events (earned tokens would be considered ordinary income).

I would ask, is "constraining liquidity" not fundamentally what validators do?

10:14

is holding not fundamentally "constraining liquidity"?

10:14

constraining liquidity is a feature, not a bug (to some extent) (edited)

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

sorry but I get pretty frustrated with the pessimism of "I don't see this passing" sentiment, as it doesn't really invalidate the fundamental proposition, it just takes a jaded outlook on the ability to drive value through utility

Agree, it's not specific to you, though. In my limited experience, this is a common comment for HIP channels. Or the opposite: "Yes" and nothing more about why yes. (edited)

1

apologize for my hard-headedness, I guess, but short attention spans and fickle speculative time horizons are not swaying my opinion much

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I would ask, is "constraining liquidity" not fundamentally what validators do?

It is, I do not disagree with you. All I am saying is not all HNT holders are alike. Some want to be able to transact freely and not have their tokens locked.

KingBuckIII

It is, I do not disagree with you. All I am saying is not all HNT holders are alike. Some want to be able to transact freely and not have their tokens locked.

that'd be unfortunate for them to "want" that.

10:17

I "want" to not have to pay the government capital or income taxes.

‍♂️

10:18

I ask what value does it bring to the network, not what value does it bring to private entities outside of the network.

krby

Agree, it's not specific to you, though. In my limited experience, this is a common comment for HIP channels. Or the opposite: "Yes" and nothing more about why yes. (edited)

facts...lol.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

that'd be unfortunate for them to "want" that.

Other HNT holders have different preferences than you or I or any others. That's all I am saying. You are welcome to disagree with that.

10:21

Liquidity is quite important across any asset class, not just crypto.

Thanks for your work on this Chris. It needs Discussion for sure.

1

1

I just want to reemphasize that relegating voting to only hotspot owners sidelines many true network participants and ostensibly produces the same inequalities as we have today with a purely HNT based voting paradigm.

maybe just a vote here on discord

It’s just an inequality that favors a different faction of network participants than the current paradigm

1

a monthly live come to the floor yes no vote

I get the sentiment, but discord based voting feels highly gameable to me

deasydoesit

I get the sentiment, but discord based voting feels highly gameable to me

true

deasydoesit

I get the sentiment, but discord based voting feels highly gameable to me

although im picturing a community call where its voice vote?

What if I pay a farm of people to present themselves and vote in my preferred direction?

deasydoesit

What if I pay a farm of people to present themselves and vote in my preferred direction?

how much? Jk valid point lol im picturing the discussion of the founders of america right now like how to

1

I’m of the opinion that a factionalized voting approach across at least (1) hotspot owners, (2) validator owners, and (3) HST holders would help reduce inequality, ensure all participants are equally heard, and align voting outcomes with the true network sentiments

I personally am not a fan of hnt=vote. hotspot seams more logical but very good points on how that can be manipulated (edited)

Where I struggle with this, is currently those that had the opportunity to dive into this project early, with 1 well placed Hotspot, will have more voting power than I will be able to accumulate over the next 15 years with many hotspots. Because of the natural "thinning" of HNT availability, many people with great ideas, or strong reservations against ideas, will not have the same voting power as someone who (may not) have great ideas, but have trumping voting power because they had an opportunity to enter sooner than someone else. I am not trying, or supporting, the OG of Helium having weighted rights taken away, but I am saying that there are many who's rights will be smothered by early deployers of hotspots.

1

Yeah, purely HNT based voting is flawed as we have all seen

1

What should be avoided is that the quest to limit the current group overrepresented in voting power leads to the creation of a new group that is over or under represented. (edited)

1

groot

What should be avoided is that the quest to limit the current group overrepresented in voting power leads to the creation of a new group that is over or under represented. (edited)

I don't mean any disrespect. I am fairly new here and want to understand as much as I can because I am in this for the long haul, but I am not understanding what you are saying. I am thinking you are saying we should leave it as it is, admitting there are groups under-represented, in fear that they will continue to be under-represented. Can you clarify for the dense minded as I am? Lol. Thanks (edited)

Just putting forward some food for thought regarding a viable alternative to HIP60. Escrowed voting shows promise, because it gives the hotspot owner a method of increasing their vote power by a factor of 100!!! It allows everyone to have a chance in having a weighty vote, while at the same time inherently contributing to the value of the network and ecosystem.

Jeff USMC🦅🌎⚓🇺🇸

I don't mean any disrespect. I am fairly new here and want to understand as much as I can because I am in this for the long haul, but I am not understanding what you are saying. I am thinking you are saying we should leave it as it is, admitting there are groups under-represented, in fear that they will continue to be under-represented. Can you clarify for the dense minded as I am? Lol. Thanks (edited)

@groot has done some awesome queries for past votes, displaying who voted for what (splitted in validators and non validators for example). His reasoning is not unfounded (edited)

deasydoesit

Yeah, purely HNT based voting is flawed as we have all seen

check out this article. There are some similarities here that are proposed in the Escrowed voting discussed in HIP51. Semantics are different, but the concept is similar. https://thedefiant.io/votelocking-governance-tokens-curve/ (edited)

DeFi Projects Embrace Vote Locking Governance Tokens to Boost Valua...

Vote locking governance tokens is the new hotness for decentralized finance protocols.

AndrewsMD

check out this article. There are some similarities here that are proposed in the Escrowed voting discussed in HIP51. Semantics are different, but the concept is similar. https://thedefiant.io/votelocking-governance-tokens-curve/ (edited)

Still seems to favor large HNT holders above all others. An HNT holding venture entity, like Multicoin Capital for example, is already long on HNT so would have a greater incentive to lock their tokens than a typical holder with shorter term perspective.

deasydoesit

Still seems to favor large HNT holders above all others. An HNT holding venture entity, like Multicoin Capital for example, is already long on HNT so would have a greater incentive to lock their tokens than a typical holder with shorter term perspective.

Does the collective community have more HNT voting power than Multicoin Cap, . . . if they voted and escrowed their vote? (edited)

I guess I just don't understand how the mere presence of an escrow addresses the known issues with a purely HNT based voting scheme. (edited)

11:28

For example, does the presence of an escrow dilute the existing voting power possessed by large HNT holders in a way that makes voting more equitable? I would argue no, and if anything, the opposite, as it would only serve to amplify the power of those with "disposable HNT" e.g., those who are already rich and can lock their HNT to see the network shaped for their intended outcomes.

11:29

Maybe if the locking duration was correlated to the amount of HNT held, and maybe that's something you're suggesting, but a simple locking mechanism doesn't move the needle imo

11:30

All fun ideas to brainstorm though

1

deasydoesit

For example, does the presence of an escrow dilute the existing voting power possessed by large HNT holders in a way that makes voting more equitable? I would argue no, and if anything, the opposite, as it would only serve to amplify the power of those with "disposable HNT" e.g., those who are already rich and can lock their HNT to see the network shaped for their intended outcomes.

Can't really argue against what you are saying. For a long time, I vehemently opposed Vote by Token lock. But I have since changed my opinion. Voting escrow or vote by token lock is imperfect, but for the life of me, I can't find a more equitable way. Just because I have a fleet of hosted hotspots should not give me more vote power than someone with one hotspot who may have invested 10x more than me into this project. Locking it up, means they are staked and in it for the long game, not a quick buck. The voter who has escrowed their rewards, is more "vested" in the success of the ecosystem than the one who has not locked up their rewards. Besides, the new proposed system adds inherent value to the token as well. HIP60 can not be argued to add value to the intrinsic worth of HNT.

11:38

. . . . For anyone who has not had the time to read HIP51, consider the following excerpt. "A user’s voting power is determined by 1) the amount of HNT they lock up with, and 2) the amount of time they commit to locking up their HNT. The structure applies a linear multiplier of time to the amount of HNT locked up in the voting contract. For the maximum amount of four years, users receive 100x the veHNT. For the minimum amount of a six month lockup, users receive 1x the veHNT. Note that veHNT is fully non-transferable, and represented as a non-fungible coupon in the user’s HNT address." (edited)

11:40

. . .For example, suppose A, B, and C all choose to lock up 1000 HNT: A chooses to lock up tokens for the minimum required duration of six months, and thus receives veHNT in the amount of 1000 B chooses to lock up tokens for twenty-seven months, and thus receives veHNT in the amount of 50 * 1000 = 50,000 C chooses to lock up tokens for forty-eight months, and thus receives veHNT in the amount of 100 * 1000 = 100,000 (edited)

deasydoesit

I just want to reemphasize that relegating voting to only hotspot owners sidelines many true network participants and ostensibly produces the same inequalities as we have today with a purely HNT based voting paradigm.

https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/395#issuecomment-1113827278

HIP xx: One Miner, One Vote by cvolkernick · Pull Request #395 · he...

This proposal suggests the constraining of HIP voting (heliumvote.com) to reflect the active "stake" network participants' voting wallets have in the form of onboarded hotspots. Ed: r...

deasydoesit

I get the sentiment, but discord based voting feels highly gameable to me

That's how voting was originally done (referred to as "straw poll" in HIP). Then the current methodology was an improvement. It added the fact that you actually had to sign the vote with an actual helium wallet private key, and increased voter awareness since votes were now pushed out via the official helium app. However now the issue being alleged is that you shouldn't be able to influence the vote based on how much of any asset you have access to (any asset because obviously we're not just talking about HNTor even just USD; with swaps and dex etc just about any value could be swapped into HNT for any given vote). Now this HIP only intends to say it would further impose some kind of [weighted] definition of who is adding value to the network and how valuable is said role's contribution relative to the other roles of network utility. (edited)

11:51

It seems worth consideration as well that there is some pseudo "proof of work" in the fact that under the proposed changes you would need to demonstrate some sort of material contribution to the network to have a weighted say in governance. So far I've yet to be swayed much on the opinion that LP is a viable network contribution beyond the point where the network is able to economically sustain itself. ("Point of Diminishing Returns on Capital") (edited)

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

That's how voting was originally done (referred to as "straw poll" in HIP). Then the current methodology was an improvement. It added the fact that you actually had to sign the vote with an actual helium wallet private key, and increased voter awareness since votes were now pushed out via the official helium app. However now the issue being alleged is that you shouldn't be able to influence the vote based on how much of any asset you have access to (any asset because obviously we're not just talking about HNTor even just USD; with swaps and dex etc just about any value could be swapped into HNT for any given vote). Now this HIP only intends to say it would further impose some kind of [weighted] definition of who is adding value to the network and how valuable is said role's contribution relative to the other roles of network utility. (edited)

The metric or definition of "adding value to the network" is more than just how many hotspots I deploy. It's only one variable. Being "vested" is a variable that is not fully addressed in HIP60. Truly respect your work and effort though. No disrespect intended. None in the least

(edited)

1

AndrewsMD

The metric or definition of "adding value to the network" is more than just how many hotspots I deploy. It's only one variable. Being "vested" is a variable that is not fully addressed in HIP60. Truly respect your work and effort though. No disrespect intended. None in the least

(edited)

Not in disagreement as best I can tell.

11:53

Adding value is pretty easily defined though, IMO, as "utility".

Had to put in the word "fully" for the hotspot owner is in essence vested to a quantifiable degree. This amount is known for we know the cost of the hotspot (on average) and we who place antenna's know the work that is involved

(edited)

The utility of raw capital becomes less and less over time as the network matures. All I'm saying. Not saying it doesn't have a role in seed and support.

11:55

And IMO even then capital can be invested in other private equity vehicles that are contributing utility themselves.

votes should be: 1 per (active) hotspot (perhaps some thought as to a scaling mechanism to weigh the voting power to the usefulness of the 'spot to the network) X per Validator (TBD weighted vs hotspots, taking into account the 10k HNT entry point as well as the built in "scaling" that validators have) ? for Routers (need more info, but sounds like a valid case due to being a useful network component)

1

11:58

All I'm saying is what efforts are the holders contributing..?

Routers are essential to the network, without them we're just pumping PoC around. (edited)

1

The hotspots are transferring & receiving data. The validators are securing the data and forming consensus. The routers are directing data flows to endpoints. Token holders are doing...??? (edited)

1

groot

Routers are essential to the network, without them we're just pumping PoC around. (edited)

Accounted for in my suggestion

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Accounted for in my suggestion

I know, I was just upping their contribution from useful to essential

(edited)

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

And IMO even then capital can be invested in other private equity vehicles that are contributing utility themselves.

Assume for example, that you buy 10 hotspots at $500 each. And they are properly deployed. Since you couldn't get more hotspots in a timely fashion, . you decided to buy $5,000 worth of HNT and stake it. Should your vote count the same as someone who bought 10 hotspots, bought zero HNT, and staked a zero amount of HNT rewards?

AndrewsMD

Assume for example, that you buy 10 hotspots at $500 each. And they are properly deployed. Since you couldn't get more hotspots in a timely fashion, . you decided to buy $5,000 worth of HNT and stake it. Should your vote count the same as someone who bought 10 hotspots, bought zero HNT, and staked a zero amount of HNT rewards?

It depends on the calculations mentioned above.

12:02

Weights of each type of network participants.

1

12:02

type/class not sure what we're calling them actually

AndrewsMD

Assume for example, that you buy 10 hotspots at $500 each. And they are properly deployed. Since you couldn't get more hotspots in a timely fashion, . you decided to buy $5,000 worth of HNT and stake it. Should your vote count the same as someone who bought 10 hotspots, bought zero HNT, and staked a zero amount of HNT rewards?

Stake as in a Validator? That's up to the staking company if they are going to give votes to their users.

The easiest way to weight them, I think, would be to peg them to DC, which is constant.

12:04

There is a cost to onboarding & asserting a hotspot in DC. There's a cost to stake a validator in DC. Routers use DC to channel data flows.

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Stake as in a Validator? That's up to the staking company if they are going to give votes to their users.

Yes exactly it's the fact that different private entities can run parallel internal governance mechanisms and "compete" with each other for delegated stake

1

Gotta run. Good luck on the hip. If you make changes to the HIP, please, please, please notify me so that I may revisit this. For now, I have drawn my conclusions based on what I have read. But I am in no way closed minded. So if changes occur, . . . please let me know. Kudo's again for writing the hip and making us think further of ways to improve voting and ultimately, . . . the ecosystem. Mad respect

2

It creates a kind of market

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

The hotspots are transferring & receiving data. The validators are securing the data and forming consensus. The routers are directing data flows to endpoints. Token holders are doing...??? (edited)

Apes stronger together.

1

Speaking of apes, the 800lb gorilla in the room: How would we vote on this HIP? The large HNT holders will just vote in their own interest to maintain control in the current voting system that community never voted for. (edited)

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Speaking of apes, the 800lb gorilla in the room: How would we vote on this HIP? The large HNT holders will just vote in their own interest to maintain control in the current voting system that community never voted for. (edited)

1

12:39

12:40

See: Chain Wars

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Speaking of apes, the 800lb gorilla in the room: How would we vote on this HIP? The large HNT holders will just vote in their own interest to maintain control in the current voting system that community never voted for. (edited)

Heliumvote works on any metric, just most are using hnt as the value for the vote, it could be hotspot/validator count

1

12:54

Or some fair metric, not sure what would be best there

12:55

I'd be worried about representation for those who just hold hnt if that was done tho

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Or some fair metric, not sure what would be best there

Short of KYC, yeah, it's awkward.

1

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

I'd be worried about representation for those who just hold hnt if that was done tho

Why hold and not either set up a hotspot or stake in a pool

Validator lockup times

That's what the pool is for

That and maybe they run out of locations

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

I'd be worried about representation for those who just hold hnt if that was done tho

Those that are just holding HNT are not a functional part of the network

1

It doesn't solve the whale problem just moves the definition of who controls to one group or another, at least right now a metric for vote can be chosen

1

You can't both argue that "holding" is a value add and continue to maintain that HNT is not a security.

Only effects validators? Use that for vote metric

It bears no utility.

Holding does for "confidence"

So if we're going down this road let's all just agree that it's a security?

12:59

Seems unlikely.

The other bit your missing is companies using the network will hold hnt to burn, don't they get a say?

Doing work to build the network builds "confidence"

For a HIP that defines how voting should be, I feel the voting method for this will have to fall to the Foundation.

Why all the defense of spending money and doing literally nothing else?

There are network participants that hodl and don't want to run gateways/validators

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

The other bit your missing is companies using the network will hold hnt to burn, don't they get a say?

Yes, as routers.

Not everyone runs a router

13:01

Do you as iowe?

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There are network participants that hodl and don't want to run gateways/validators

Then they don't want to vote ..

13:01

Lol

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There are network participants that hodl and don't want to run gateways/validators

How exactly are they a network participant?

They sell services using the network

13:01

Which we're going to get more and more of (edited)

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

They sell services using the network

The mall kiosk selling cellphones is not a network participant

13:02

Users != network owners

If they're holding to run routers for their services then they'll be all good they'll have a say as routers.

They're the most important part of the network lol

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

If they're holding to run routers for their services then they'll be all good they'll have a say as routers.

So as iowe do you run a router?

We are working on it, yes.

Ok but for months you havnt been, maybe years now?

Won't have a choice either way after the year long grandfather into public.

Is that not participating in the network?

No, because we also deploy hotspots.

13:04

Keep coming though.

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

They're the most important part of the network lol

The network is functional without them in a pure sense. Will a car engine run without a driver? Yes. Is it going to go anywhere? No.

Haha this is getting comical

I don't get to vote in Verizon just for using their service.

1

Bringing in regulatory fears that are irrelevant (edited)

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

I don't get to vote in Verizon just for using their service.

Verizon isn't decentralised lol

HG

Bringing in regulatory fears that are irrelevant (edited)

Aren't relevant lol

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Verizon isn't decentralised lol

Doesn't matter. Users don't get votes. Network owners do. (edited)

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Verizon isn't decentralised lol

Neither is helium, currently

So as a service giving you value for your install, they shouldn't get a say in the network?

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Aren't relevant lol

Pardon are you correcting my grammar haha (edited)

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Verizon isn't decentralised lol

The decentralized is about the owners

1

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

So as a service giving you value for your install, they shouldn't get a say in the network?

no. You are a consumer, not a network owner.

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

So as a service giving you value for your install, they shouldn't get a say in the network?

Depends, are they installing their own hotspots or someone else's? Are they staking validators? Are they running a router?

Not everyone will be happy with a 5 month stake

13:08

But id sure buy a few hotspots and shove them in the cupboard if it was the only way I'd get to vote

HG

Pardon are you correcting my grammar haha (edited)

No laughing that you think the conversation about whether helium is a security is irrelevant to what utility speculating holders contribute or don't contribute to network utility

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Not everyone will be happy with a 5 month stake

Then they should install hotspots. Or run routers. If they want votes, they should be building the network.

It's the conversation that the turtle doesn't want us having

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

But id sure buy a few hotspots and shove them in the cupboard if it was the only way I'd get to vote

Active hotspots get votes, not just purchasing some.

What counts as active?

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

What counts as active?

And how long does it need to be active.

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

What counts as active?

Come on Neil... you know.

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Then they should install hotspots. Or run routers. If they want votes, they should be building the network.

He's insinuating that because they don't own the hotspots they won't get a say

Because with an attenuator I can easily get a decent set of voting hotspots

Or at least seems to be

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

No laughing that you think the conversation about whether helium is a security is irrelevant to what utility speculating holders contribute or don't contribute to network utility

Commodities are purchased for speculation and are not securities

I'm saying this networks not just about hotspot owners

13:10

It's about the businesses growing usage on the network too

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

I'm saying this networks not just about hotspot owners

But I am important.

And that everyone's aligned in that with hnt and using that to vote

HG

Commodities are purchased for speculation and are not securities

Helium is not a commodity

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

It's about the businesses growing usage on the network too

Which are covered by routers.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Which are covered by routers.

Not always

And if I have to sell my HNT every week to survive, I should still be getting atleast a single voting power because of my hotspot.

1

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Not always

When is it not

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Helium is not a commodity

It seems closer to a commodity that anything else

1

Educate me

HG

It seems closer to a commodity that anything else

How so?

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Which are covered by routers.

You don't have to run a console to get more than 10 devices remember

We're literally saying here, per @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io et al, speculating holders should have a say

13:12

There's a name for that

13:12

It's called securities

13:12

Aka "stocks"

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

How so?

It’s purchased and has utility outside of itself

13:12

It is used to transfer data

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Because with an attenuator I can easily get a decent set of voting hotspots

With a market, I can easily get a decent set of voting HNT...?

HG

It’s purchased and has utility outside of itself

This is only true if the only people who have governing input are network utilities

13:13

Once you bring in speculators that aren't doing "work", it's a security.

13:13

Fizzy

With a market, I can easily get a decent set of voting HNT...?

With the used market being what it is I can get a pretty big vote going too for less than a validator

It's right there man. "Derived from the efforts of others"

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

This is only true if the only people who have governing input are network utilities

It’s actually true in all circumstances. It is literally a way to pay for data transfer by definition (edited)

Try arguing "it brings confidence" to the SEC

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

With the used market being what it is I can get a pretty big vote going too for less than a validator

But not less then a HNT (hotspot vs hnt value). :3 (edited)

HG

It’s actually true in all circumstances. It is literally a way to pay for data transfer by definition (edited)

You're missing my point. Yes transferring, routing, validating are network utilities. If that was the only place that value was being extracted from, you'd be correct. But once you say that there are entities putting in investment capital, doing nothing else besides that, and then making a profit, you've just described a security.

People can buy corn with no intent of using it and to sell it to someone else and it’s still a commodity

Point again being, vanilla wallet holders need to be removed from governance.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

You're missing my point. Yes transferring, routing, validating are network utilities. If that was the only place that value was being extracted from, you'd be correct. But once you say that there are entities putting in investment capital, doing nothing else besides that, and then making a profit, you've just described a security.

No I said that the they are supporting the value of HNT

That's not going to fly with Feds man

1

13:17

Lol

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

Because with an attenuator I can easily get a decent set of voting hotspots

Non-issue. Cheating hotspots already have voting power via stolen HNT.

‍♂️

I'm going to invest in Tesla and say I'm supporting the value of Teslas

13:18

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

I'm going to invest in Tesla and say I'm supporting the value of Teslas

It’s secured ownership in a business

Let’s please keep the howey test out of here, it’s not relevant, introduces risk in the discussion, and no one is qualified to really discuss (unless there is a capital markets attorney in the room)

3

capcom

Let’s please keep the howey test out of here, it’s not relevant, introduces risk in the discussion, and no one is qualified to really discuss (unless there is a capital markets attorney in the room)

Maybe it's time to get capital markets attorneys in the room (edited)

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

With the used market being what it is I can get a pretty big vote going too for less than a validator

How so? The thought is to weight validators vs hotspots voting power in a fair way.

Guy is bombing his own HIP

1

Happy to hear how is not relevant though

capcom

Let’s please keep the howey test out of here, it’s not relevant, introduces risk in the discussion, and no one is qualified to really discuss (unless there is a capital markets attorney in the room)

Someone knows someone who must know a lot of other lawyers

Having spent several years and millions of $ on the topic, I can safely say nothing said so far is accurate and we should just stop talking about. We’ve also generally blanket banned discussion of this topic on this server and I don’t want to change that

1

Or just skip the topic in its entirety since it is just a bunch of smoke to distract from the actual discussion.

Well if that's the case they I'm sure we're all good because you've sorted it out! No harm in discussing then, no?

13:20

I got it

Haha lash out!!

capcom

Having spent several years and millions of $ on the topic, I can safely say nothing said so far is accurate and we should just stop talking about. We’ve also generally blanket banned discussion of this topic on this server and I don’t want to change that

yeah, we're edging way too far into the abyss.

The whole fundamental ask here is clarity

13:20

So

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

yeah, we're edging way too far into the abyss.

We’re deep in the abyss my friend

1

groot

Or just skip the topic in its entirety since it is just a bunch of smoke to distract from the actual discussion.

By all means proceed with discussion.

capcom

We’re deep in the abyss my friend

Welcome to the dark side, how relevant considering the date.

2

1

Something preferably not about typos or grammar

groot

Welcome to the dark side, how relevant considering the date.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Something preferably not about typos or grammar

Not grammar, word choice (edited)

It's just weird that you say nothing said is accurate and then don't hazard what is supposedly accurate, I guess..??

Groot is right, let's get back to the core issue rather than these tangents

Like I said feel free to make corrections

13:23

Seems like there's not really any significant disagreement up until the question of do wallets alone get votes

13:23

Tbh

13:24

@ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

There's also the manufacturers to think about, power to onboard keys, run industrial sized farms, have a huge vote, deeper had 10k ish gaming before they were caught?

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Seems like there's not really any significant disagreement up until the question of do wallets alone get votes

wallets alone to vote? That would not work due to the ease of just spinning up wallets.

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There's also the manufacturers to think about, power to onboard keys, run industrial sized farms, have a huge vote, deeper had 10k ish gaming before they were caught?

Again, gaming is not part of the discussion here.

I know, I'm talking about hnt holders lol

But they had months of voting power before they were caught

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There's also the manufacturers to think about, power to onboard keys, run industrial sized farms, have a huge vote, deeper had 10k ish gaming before they were caught?

Actually a great point hashc0de also pointed out

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There's also the manufacturers to think about, power to onboard keys, run industrial sized farms, have a huge vote, deeper had 10k ish gaming before they were caught?

You should take that up with the MOC

13:25

The issue of gaming is not changed by this HIP and thus isn't relevant

Worst HIP of all time!!!!

1

2

1

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

You should take that up with the MOC

The pocswg is churning don't worry

1

Not really, it is directly relevant to the discussion since it isn't gaming that's worrying it is the fact that manufacturers can sway a vote by onboarding a lot of hotspots.

HG

Worst HIP of all time!!!!

Definitely a laudible contribution!

But it happens, just saying

Thank you!

There are more deeper like targets

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

The pocswg is churning don't worry

You are literally the one who stated being worried, what

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

There are more deeper like targets

again, gaming is not a relevant factor in this.

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

again, gaming is not a relevant factor in this.

Again, it isn't the gaming, it is a vendor with the ability to onboard hotspots.

It's just "whataboutism" and is distracting

I guess we wouldn't call buying votes gaming

Superficially written

HG

Superficially written

Sorry you have to think about contributing to the conversation

groot

Again, it isn't the gaming, it is a vendor with the ability to onboard hotspots.

And anti-gaming HIPs are taking care of that. Not a relevant factor in this discussion.

If we use 'buying votes' as an argument for this HIP you must equally consider 'onboarding hotspots' as an argument against this HIP.

groot

If we use 'buying votes' as an argument for this HIP you must equally consider 'onboarding hotspots' as an argument against this HIP.

Buying hotspots adds value to the utility of the network

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

Buying hotspots adds value to the utility of the network

Not buying hotspots, onboarding keys.

HG

Superficially written

Either add useful thoughts to the discussion, or just stop please.

1

HG

Superficially written

I’m ready for hips of this quality (from our friend Jeremy):: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki

bips/bip-0119.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.

1

2

groot

If we use 'buying votes' as an argument for this HIP you must equally consider 'onboarding hotspots' as an argument against this HIP.

Are those onboarded hotspots installed and adding to the network?

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Are those onboarded hotspots installed and adding to the network?

For a few days, maybe.

When @capcom starts throwing shade you know it’s getting real

groot

For a few days, maybe.

So you're suggesting a buffer of sorts until a hotspot has voting rights?

So you think someone is going to spend millions of dollars onboarding hotspots to... Throw them away? (edited)

jhbr821

When @capcom starts throwing shade you know it’s getting real

No shade intended! Genuine hope there, we should all aspire to create proposals with that kind of depth. It’s very impressive

jhbr821

When @capcom starts throwing shade you know it’s getting real

Nah. He loves to throw a little shade here and there.

️ lol

capcom

No shade intended! Genuine hope there, we should all aspire to create proposals with that kind of depth. It’s very impressive

We can't all be engineers

We all need some shade from time to time lol

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

So you're suggesting a buffer of sorts until a hotspot has voting rights?

Not really, I'm saying consider the issue.

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

So you think someone is going to spend millions of dollars onboarding hotspots to... Throw them away? (edited)

Nah... sounds like they are suggesting a maker would spin up a bunch just to sway a vote, right @groot ?

groot

Not really, I'm saying consider the issue.

I'm not sure the issue is clear

ElonTusk | 5Gchipped

Nah... sounds like they are suggesting a maker would spin up a bunch just to sway a vote, right @groot ?

They said "for a few days" (edited)

13:35

Suggesting they would be useless after that utility wise

deeper had months of 10k hotspots gaming

🎈hnt.ChrisV.btc⚡

They said "for a few days" (edited)

I wouldn't focus on that part.

nov-feb? was it?

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

deeper had months of 10k hotspots gaming

Yes?

so they had the voting weight of 10k hotspots for 3-4 months

Oooh I like this HIP, but my guess it that big HNT owners wouldn't vote in favor of losing their dominant voting position

2

1

And they can currently use all that stolen HNT to vote with.

1

sure

13:38

but you have to consider both sides

Ih8mypp

Oooh I like this HIP, but my guess it that big HNT owners wouldn't vote in favor of losing their dominant voting position

The community never approved voting with HNT in the first place...

1

the hip authors actually decide what metric to use

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

so they had the voting weight of 10k hotspots for 3-4 months

Yes, they did. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make.

that for 3-4 months, unknown to us, they could have swayed a vote

13:40

and it could happen again in the future

strawpolls lets gooooo

1

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

the hip authors actually decide what metric to use

No.... you can't write a HIP that defines its own passage. "This HIP will pass if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow" lol

1

you can use any on chain metric, its just been hnt so far

13:41

it could be count of hotspots, or count of validators

BFGNeil - Trackpac.io

that for 3-4 months, unknown to us, they could have swayed a vote

And they can sway a vote now also. If there is no difference, there is no relevance.

so I think the point made above incidentally or otherwise is you're contradicting your own point by saying "the existing gamed HNT can already do what you're suggesting might happen with a MOC vulnerability"